Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger wrote: “For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one.” Kissinger, like him or not, is spot on in his succinct assessment of Obama’s policy for Russia. As the West descends into another reckless and disastrous war in the Middle East, Putin must be quietly laughing knowing that very soon the US will soon have its Soviet moment of collapse. In fact, to strategically defeat the US, all Russia must do is wait for the utter mismanagement of our nation to bring about its implosion. In this third and final installment of our exclusive analysis of the conflicting Russo-American policies, it is clear that in the first major post-Cold War struggle between Russia and the US, it will be Russia that scores a victory in the Ukraine crisis. Read more
Archive for Politics
Obama Administration is carrying out Bio-Terrorism inside the USA
A conversation with Americans that watch the news regularly would reveal they are aware and worried about terrorism and Ebola coming to the US. Their fears are not unfounded, but profoundly biased by sensationalized coverage that has been heavily edited by those with political motives. To illustrate this point, the threat of terrorists using a biological weapon in the US strikes fear into the heart of Americans, but outside of a small use of anthrax, this threat has never materialized. However, what if I told you literally tens of thousands of Americans have died and millions have been sickened by a deliberate biological attack. Wouldn’t that on-going attack generate far more fear, outrage, and a sense of urgency to act? You would think, but it hasn’t. In fact, as I write this post, millions of Americans have been sickened and or killed by a host of diseases that were once thought eradicated in the US. Further, new illnesses are spreading to the US that were either non-existent in the US or extremely rare. How could this be one should ask. The answer is simple. A deliberate government policy that ignores the safety and security of the American people, while undermining the nation’s sovereignty has been put in place and allowed to exist by both Republicans and Democrats vying for greater political power. Read more
Lessons from Ferguson: Policing goes Paramilitary
The events leading up to the shooting death of an 18 year old man in Fergusson by a police officer are under investigation and the “facts” appear to be conflicting. What are not in doubt are the events that transpired after the shooting. Citizens genuinely concerned and outraged wanting a full and impartial investigation rose up in peaceful, legitimate protests, but so did the most criminal elements within our society. It appears that not only was the race baiting, rabble rousers such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton ready to pounce and exploit this shooting, but so were many hoodlums that exploited the protests to rob, loot, and destroy. The media was right on their heels to cover the ratings generating violence and President Obama wasted no time wading into what can only be considered divisive racial politics his track record suggests he favors stoking. However, as prepared citizens, what really should concern us is at least two-fold and goes far beyond the distractive on-going racial narrative from Missouri. Read more
An Open Letter to President Obama and Congress on US Policy toward Ukraine and Russia

As the United States races forward to develop policy to deal with the escalating crisis in the Ukraine, many citizens have been left totally uniformed respective of our regional interests and policies toward it. As a concerned citizen, I am respectfully requesting a pause to allow professional debate on the subject before the Administration effectively locks America into another Cold War with Russia. I, like many Americans, remember the days of the Cold War and do not wish to return to the fear of nuclear annihilation, incredible levels of defense spending, and never ending guerrilla wars across the globe.
Sadly, logic rarely plays any part in policy development and seems to have had almost no impact on the current administration’s policy decisions. Further, as a mere voiceless citizen amongst the masses, I have little reason to suspect my voice matters or will ever be heard in front of our policy makers. As such, I risk being labeled a radical for daring to demand answers to critical questions all Americans should be concerned over as President Obama and the US Congress steer our nation toward a head on collision with Russia. America, as every nation, has made many mistakes in its past. Can we not, at least once, learn from these mistakes and try to get a policy right? Rather than simply complain and point out the failures, I will offer solutions. To that end, I recommend an initial, vigorous, public debate to inform upon and explore all policy options before our political knee jerk reactions land our nation in very dire waters.
I am of the mindset that sanctions are the extreme extent of economic warfare, which is inextricably linked to waging warfare in the classical sense. Therefore, a declaration to destroy a nation’s economy is, in effect, the same as war. To assume otherwise is a dangerous oversight in respect to high stakes political brinkmanship. Perhaps the Russian oligarchs will still have steak and caviar, but sanctions will mean joblessness, hardship, and starvation for millions of Russians. These deprivations upon the public amount to little difference from a shooting war. Russia intimately understands this, but unlike Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, Russia has the ability to effectively fight back against global bullying. Before walking further down this treacherous road with Russia, a formidable adversary I must add, I would like the President, Congress, and ultimately the American public to definitively answer and defend in open debate the following elementary questions:
What and specifically, whose interests are being served by our involvement in the Ukraine? What vital national interests are at stake? What will we receive in exchange for our involvement in Ukraine? What are our policy goals in respect to Russia and Ukraine? What end state do we seek by sanctioning Russia? What is the timeline by which we determine success in our policy? How far are we willing to go to achieve those goals? Will we commit to military action should sanctions fail to achieve our policy goals? Are we willing to risk nuclear war?
What is the projected global economic impact of sanctions on Russia for the US economy? Are sanctions our only tools? What price is the US willing to pay for enacting painful sanctions on Russia? If Europe won’t support sanctions, why should the US? Do we truly have a global economy? If so, wouldn’t hurting the Russian economy also hurt the world economy? If Europe is correct that sanctions would hurt the EU’s economy, wouldn’t it by default also hurt the US economy? Can the US economy afford more negative economic pressure? Is sanctioning Russia over Ukraine worth billions of dollars in losses for the US economy? How many dollars in losses are we willing to endure to achieve our policy goals in Ukraine? Will one billion dollars in loans be enough money to stabilize Ukraine? If not, how much are we willing to spend and what will we expect as a return on investment? What is the actual probability the US taxpayer will be repaid for the loan to Ukraine?
Why can’t Ukraine fight for itself? Isn’t Ukraine a European issue? Why must the US fight Europe’s battles? What are the historic consequences of intervening in Europe’s civil wars? What is the historical precedent for American success in this type of intervention?
Who are the leaders in the Ukraine that we are now supporting? Did they not take power through a violent overthrow of the elected Ukrainian government? Who supported that revolution? Could the Russians have viewed this as a threat? If the tables were turned, would we approve of similar action on our borders? How do we decide who is and isn’t the legitimate government in the Ukraine? Who are we to decide which coups, in a string of overthrows and power grabs, are legitimate after unilaterally deciding the formerly recognized Ukrainian government was illegitimate? How do we know the current regime in power in Kiev will work toward America’s best interests? If the leadership we back in Ukraine becomes unpopular and fails to deliver positive change, will we continue to back the regime? If the leadership we back in Ukraine is itself overthrown, what is the potential damage to US interests in the region?
Will sanctions actually achieve our goals by altering Russia’s decisions or just further alienate a rather large and powerful nation? How long are we willing to continue sanctions before we assess policy failure or success? If sanctions fail to have the desired effect, what are plans B and C? What is the cost of inaction? What would be the benefits to supporting Moscow over Kiev? Have we even considered supporting Moscow? What are the Russian grievances? What does Russia have to gain or lose in Ukraine? How far is Moscow willing to go to defend what it considers its vital national interests in Ukraine? How much pain is Russia willing to endure to achieve its policy goals respective of Ukraine? Are we willing to inflict that amount of pain to force our will on Russia? How much pain will doing so entail for the US?
Are we as a nation prepared to step firmly back into a new Cold War landscape for the indefinite future? Is the US willing to play the game of chicken to its full conclusion? If not, why should we engage in the dangerous game of brinkmanship in the first place? What retaliatory measures will Moscow take in response to sanctions? Where and how could Moscow feasibly hurt America the worst? What are the implications of Moscow shutting down the Northern Supply Route to Afghanistan during our planned retreat in 2014? What are the implications of Moscow authorizing advanced weapons sales to countries like Syria, Iran, and China? What if Moscow attacked the US militarily? What would be the most likely course of action for Moscow? What would Moscow’s most dangerous course of action be? Do Americans realize further escalation could lead to the deaths of many Americans across the world as Russia begins to retaliate? Is this something that America considers an acceptable loss?
I would argue that if these very basic, yet critically important questions were honestly answered and publicly debated, the policy decisions respective of the situation in the Ukraine would be patently clear. What Americans would realize is that intervention in Ukraine is not in our vital national interests. The US could only derive a net loss to our global geopolitical stability, security, and strength. The public would see that US actions will be ineffective, counterproductive, and ultimately futile. Americans would not be willing to pay the true price of a reckless intervention.
Perhaps, I am an unbending ideologue for asking that basic logic to be applied to our policy decisions. Maybe, I am just a blind and backwards isolationist for wanting to avoid more foreign conflict. Certainly, I must be a cold pragmatist for the mere insinuation that one should place American interests before foreign interests. We might as well assume I am also greedy for suggesting I am not willing to have more of my tax dollars looted to pay the debts owed to foreign banks by foreign elites. No doubt I am also unpatriotic for not rushing to arms to support military intervention in the Ukraine. If so, then I stand guilty as charged.
Sincerely,
Guiles Hendrik
April 20, 2014
All rights reserved.
Contact: Please send questions or comments to guileshendrik@gmail.com
An Open Letter to Connecticut Law Enforcement

Connecticut has a storied history in the founding of our republic. As a state at the forefront of the Revolutionary War, its patriots stood firm in the face of tyranny. What they helped achieve was nothing short of miraculous in respect to the new nation with freedoms and liberties never before known to previous generations of countless subjects. In the coming days and weeks, you as law enforcement officers will be ordered to enforce a draconian gun control law against the wishes of the very same type of men that stood against tyrants and freed our nation from monarchy. Will you go door to door and arrest those patriots that refuse to lay down their arms in the face of unconstitutional legislative action? I ask that you do stand down and refuse to obey those orders for the common good.
Many of these peaceful citizens will be farmers, teachers, carpenters, doctors, soldiers, sportsmen, fireman, and former law enforcement that have dedicated their professional lives to the betterment and protection of their fellow citizens. They are the true first line of defense for their families and communities. They are you and me. You will be told that these “former” law abiding citizens are suddenly now dangerous felons that pose an existential threat to peace in your state. Those that refuse to hand over their lawfully obtained and peacefully maintained firearms will be deemed outlaws and you will be tasked with stamping out this rebellion. How will you justify your actions? Are you “just doing your job” like the Gestapo’s foot soldiers? Will you use maximum force for officer safety at the risk of innocent citizens being harmed or killed? When you have to kill your fellow citizens to disarm them will it be worth it? When your actions lead to more deaths of children and innocents will it be justified? Will your actions truly serve good or evil? Are you willing to risk your life for the leftist bureaucrats that care nothing for you and look with contempt at law enforcement behind closed doors as brutish, uneducated, hired guns? Will you stand with the people of your communities or the tyrants in government? Do you realize that this issue is far bigger than Connecticut?
Consider that until you begin to breach doors and enter the homes of peaceful citizens at gunpoint, there was no threat. There was no bloodshed. There was no violence in these communities emanating from these lawful gun owners. If you enforce this unconstitutional law, it will be you that brings violence and bloodshed to the innocent. You will surrender your title of protector of the innocent and become the very evil you claim to stand against. You will lose all standing amongst the citizenry as legitimate. You will become nothing more than the armed thugs of the elite and deserve your earned fate. Ironically, you will be the very threat against which, citizens were given the right by law to be armed.
A healthy republic relies on the action of free men with unimpeachable integrity, inquisitive minds, and steadfast moral constitutions. Your founding fathers left a clear mandate for you to resist tyranny in every form at every opportunity. Every one of you should intuitively understand that surrendering arms is not about protection but about the total power and control of the state at the expense of a citizen’s freedom and liberty. The power of the government is inversely proportional to the freedom of the people; the more powerful the government, the less free the people. However, the power of a nation is directly proportional to its freedom and liberty; the more free the peopl e, the stronger the nation. Remember that even the United States Attorney General, Eric Holder, stated as recently as last month that you should not enforce laws you feel are unconstitutional. Further, the oath many of us took was to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. This is your moment to stand firm with your fellow citizens against tyranny and let it be known that you will not be a part of their oppression. Do what tyrants fear most and stand up to them. Without their brutish enforcers, the schemers have no power. I ask each and every one of you to show true courage and utterly refuse to enforce Connecticut’s unconstitutional gun control laws. Prove to the tyrants that the old blood of patriots is still alive and well amongst New England’s citizens and you will defend liberty and freedom today as your forefathers did in 1776. Stand firm, stand united, but do not stand for the schemers that seek to disarm and control our nation. Refuse to enforce this law.
Sincerely,
Guiles Hendrik
The stage is set for final economic liquidation of the United States: Detroit request 50,000 immigrants

What does a corrupt and dysfunctional government due with its constituents after it has sucked every last drop of blood from them? Replace them of course. Detroit is not liquidating its population in the sense of Mao or Stalin, but even a quick study of Detroit’s demographics will reveal it has undergone a mass exodus. Detroit, the once vibrant industrial city is now no longer able to pay its bills, which has led to bankruptcy and an inability to maintain its infrastructure. As the lights permanently go dark and packs of wild dogs roam the streets, entire portions of Detroit have been turned into gangland ghettos reminiscent of the prescient 1987 film RoboCop. To “fix” the problem our “enlightened” elites created, Detroit’s government is planning to import 50,000 new workers (slaves) to Detroit. However, what they aren’t telling you is that their idea of a “fix” and your idea of a “fix” are radically different and you are not going to like it. The elite fix will be the final act in the economic liquidation of the United States…or in layman’s terms, an engineered economic collapse. The collapse of Detroit wasn’t destined. It could have been averted if responsible fiscal policies had been instituted and a total takeover of the political system by unions and global corporations prevented. However, this was not to be. The marriage between government and big business was allowed to occur without protest and was actually welcomed much like President Obama’s dictatorial declarations in his 2014 State of the Union address. Soon though, greed took control of Detroit as handouts became preferred over earned paychecks. It wasn’t long after that the powerhouses of American industry lost their competitive edge. As one business after another closed its doors, Detroit was stripped of its vital tax revenues it had reliably pilfered from the middle class and left with massive debts to cover the costs of the remaining non-productive elements within the city. ’s huge and now growing debt became a time bomb with a short fuse that sealed its economic destruction. In the wake of Detroit’s demise, the city has left an older generation of workers stripped of their pensions and retirements and a younger generation of unemployed. As for its industry, well, it of course left the US. The propaganda pipedreams sold to the people of Detroit were simply dressed up lies that are designed to appeal to the masses, the “working classes,” the average hardworking Americans, but are pure economic poison designed only to solidify the status quo of the elites at the expense of competitive businesses and true economic growth. This type of snake oil appears in many ways such as a minimum wage. These policies sound great in the near term because they claim to insulate and protect jobs, but are doomed to fail over the longer term because they strip away a company’s need and or ability to be competitive in the true global market. Without the need to compete, laziness and apathy creep into a business. Innovation, research, and development are shelved because they detract from maximizing profits. Instead of building better products and operating more efficiently, companies found it easier to simply control the market bureaucratically. As this incestual, economic disease metastasized throughout government, laws were passed to further “protect” the “established” businesses and enrich the elites. This biased the market against new and competitive businesses making it impossible for them to compete and killed any residual business initiatives. As a result, only large, non-competitive, and highly inefficient businesses that could afford to buy politicians were left. Of course this system was flawed, but by the time the Detroit woke up to realize the market was a global one, more competitive industries at home and abroad put the Motor City out of business. This self-destructive economic cycle ultimately killed the host…the hard working middle class of Detroit. Once the middle class were decimated, the tax revenues collapsed and Detroit effectively became economically insolvent. Elites tend to like to keep and expand their power and wealth. As soon as the elites realized they no longer could maintain the status quo within the United States, they took their businesses overseas where they could find cheap labor to exploit for maximum profit. This is often a result of centralized economic controls associated with leftist economic policies and unions that favor such things as an artificially high minimum wage and unmanageable pension plans. These policies make it impossible for even a healthy company to compete against lean companies with low overhead. As such, with the help of fancy marketing to the public and highly paid lobbyists, “fair” trade deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) were passed. The trade deals were written and designed to benefit the proverbial 1% and not the middle class. The real effect would be to destroy national borders and tip the balance of “fairness” against the US worker. The elites knew this meant that the American standard of living would plummet as industry and jobs flowed out, but not into the US. This Machiavellian decision was made because America was becoming a saturated, stagnant market with high overhead costs due in no small part to union demanded benefits, high taxes, and oppressive government regulations. In order to expand profits, the companies needed access to the global market and the fastest growing segments of the world population, such as in Asia. NAFTA and the current, emerging, and highly secretive Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement have and will, respectively, decimate the living standard in the US. Detroit’s demise should be a warning to anyone that believes globalist policies will lead the US to new levels of economic prosperity. These same mechanisms that brought down Detroit are at work and in advanced stages now across the entire US. BOTH political parties are to blame for this. The Republican President George H.W. Bush signed into law the NAFTA and Democratic President Obama has unrelentingly forced a radical socialist/Marxist agenda upon the US to complete the globalist designs oft referenced by the former President Bush as the “New World Order.” President Obama is also nearing completion of the super-secret TPP agreement with China, which if NAFTA is any indicator, will be catastrophic for the US economy. Nonetheless, even without the foreign trade sellouts agreements, the economic and regulatory policies of the progressive left alone will be enough to crush the last remaining vibrant elements of the US economy. The bottom line is centrally planned economies have never worked historically anywhere in the world and will not work in the US. So one may ask what does importing 50,000 immigrants have to do with helping Detroit. The answer is it won’t help you and it won’t help Detroit; it will help the 1%. The elites and their paid politicians have set the stage for the perfect storm of economic collapse in the US. Detroit is the first pilot test. Detroit will get a temporary boost of cheap labor that will be sold to the public as a way to produce tax revenue and rejuvenate the city’s ailing population. However, it will further disenfranchise American workers, increase domestic unemployment, and diminish the US standard of living. The guest workers will not be paying taxes because their income will be below the taxable limit, but they will certainly benefit from social welfare programs such as free healthcare, food stamps, subsidized housing, and welfare. This will be a huge net loss financially for Detroit and the US, but that doesn’t matter to the globalists expecting windfall profits and living abroad. In exchange for the sellout, the bought politicians get a readymade pool of new constituent votes via “amnesty” and more campaign donations from the global corporations to keep them in power. In the end it will only be the wealthy elites of the global corporations that increase their profits, which from their offshore perches and beach front mansions in Monaco seem like a good idea. The overriding premise of this is that cheap labor increases the profit margin of big globalist corporations allowing them to put anyone else not enjoying the same type of special favors out of business. The paradox of this logic was noted ironically by Karl Marx in that if no one has money to buy the goods, the capitalist system will collapse. However, that is the future and this is the now. So how does this perfect storm work? Global corporations will have a new pool of what amounts to domestic slave labor that maximizes their profits. They accomplished this by lobbying (paying off) politicians to pass amnesty, not enforce border security, and approve the 50,000 work visas for Detroit. Detroit will be the first city to undergo this transnational corporate takeover. This will put more Americans out of work because other “good” businesses paying legitimate wages can’t compete. As the American workers lose their jobs and remain unemployed, non-Americans will be brought in to assume those American jobs, which will further increase the pool of under or unemployed. Tax revenues will plummet as social welfare and public service costs sky rocket. This will spread to more cities and put more and more people out of work. As more cities collapse like Detroit, they will be next in line for “help” and will receive hundreds of thousands of immigrant workers. As each city falls, the global corporations will continue to transition their workforce to cheap labor and continue to increase their profit margins. Bought politicians will look the other way and proclaim the benefits of diversity. This business model is only possible because our once free Republic has been turned into a complete social welfare state. As such, the burden of paying a living wage is no longer on the corporations, but on you the taxpayer. You, the dwindling middle class worker, will be responsible for paying the immigrant workers’ healthcare (Obamacare), food stamps, welfare, education/tuition, costs for municipal services, and housing subsidies to name some of the major welfare programs. This burden will be unsustainable for a solvent country. Thus finite, it will lead to the final economic collapse of the US even as key stocks soar from record corporate profits. There simply will not be enough tax paying workers to support the welfare state leviathan and just as Detroit collapsed as its tax revenues to payouts went negative, so too will the US. To complete this logic, one must ask then what good it does the companies to collapse the US economy. To understand, one must remember the corporations are “global.” They don’t operate in a world of boundaries and borders. Their practices are parasitic and predatory and operate for maximum profit now. That means as our nation is bled of every last cent and economically destroyed, they will just move on to a new market like they did in Detroit. The money the corporations make will be used to dominate the next emerging market and the cycle will continue with the American worker now the cheap labor supporting the more advanced economies in other parts of the world. This leaves you stuck with the debt, poverty, and the tyranny of near absolute dependence on the government. This dependence equates to government control (by the very same bought politicians that got you in this situation), which means you are no longer free and ruled by a corrupt elite. You are now a slave and the globalists control you.
By Guiles Hendrik
January 30, 2014
All rights reserved.
Image © Albert Duece
The Next Manufactured War: China and the Pacific Theater Take Center Stage
As we have exhaustively written and warned in previous articles, a new war will need to be manufactured to continue to justify the continued redistribution of billions of taxpayer dollars to the military-industrial complex financed by the big banks. The titans of the defense industry and the loan sharks of the banking world cannot afford peace and will stop at nothing to create fear and war to ensure their wealth is secure. The United States economy has not made a true comeback as has been touted by the media and falsified government reports and soon the bubble the Federal Reserve created will have to be deflated. To keep the public distracted and the money flowing, a new plan to create fear, instability, and possibly war in the Pacific has now begun.
It is becoming increasingly clear that no matter what deal is or is not struck in Afghanistan respective of continued troop deployments, NATO and the US forces are going to be forced to retreat within the next 12 to 18 months. The Taliban’s (Pakistan’s) strategic victory is all but assured now, which will make future occupation by U.S. personnel impossible. Further, the movement toward war with Iran by way of Syria has been temporarily checked by Russia until Israel can build enough clandestine support behind the scenes to sabotage any future peace deal or unilaterally attack Iran. As such, the military-industrial complex has turned back to its fear mongering and war propaganda to begin conditioning the public that North Korea and China are again dire threats that must be stopped at all costs and that war could break out at any moment. Of course this hyperbole is used to justify the “need” for new advanced weapons, continued funding of obsolete, redundant, or unnecessary defense systems, and to generally control the masses. As a nation we have witnessed this ploy over and over resulting in unnecessary wars from Vietnam to Iraq that have cost millions of lives and trillions of dollars worldwide. The wanton destruction wrought by these industry power plays can’t be understated. For example, as we reported in the spring of 2013, North Korea was rebranded as a strategic missile threat overnight and then only weeks later forgotten after the defense-aerospace industry scared Congress and the public into refunding their missile defense programs that have been wasting billions of tax dollars and were rightfully on the sequester chopping block. The fact that the bankers and defense propagandists nearly started World War III didn’t matter a bit because no matter whether or not war broke out, it was you and I that would have to bleed, pay, and die for their fortunes. This process of fear mongering and dangerous brinkmanship is a trademark defense industry ploy used to make sure you continue to write them checks for billions of dollars without question. Without question, it is one of the most diabolical, destructive, despicable, and immoral of all lies repeatedly pushed on the citizens of nations.
Fortunately, the American people have to some degree grown war weary and have been sensitized to the lies of war propaganda. This is good and bad. It is good in that the simplest of lies will no longer suffice to convince the American people to once again go to war and bleed and pay for the elites to become wealthier. However, the elites recognize this and will conduct even more aggressive and despicable acts to create the conditions for war. For illustration, just this year in Syria, a false flag chemical weapons attack was launched against innocent civilians in an attempt to frame the Syrian regime and justify the US becoming involved in yet another war in the Middle East. It is important to note that this attack using weapons of mass destruction was resorted to after numerous lesser attempts to “convict” the Syrian regime in the minds of the public and precipitate a war had failed. This included launching mortar rounds into Israel and Turkey, launching air attacks into Syria directly from Israel, directly providing training and weapons to known terrorists operating in Syria, repeatedly violating Syrian airspace so that they would shoot down a NATO jet, and persistently trying to brand the radical Islamic jihadists of the revolutionary forces as a peaceful, unified, pro-US, Free Syrian Army. All of these acts were designed to either directly or indirectly illicit a defensive response from Syria, which Washington could then spin into an act of “aggression” to justify retaliation and war. The Syrian example is just one of many illustrating to what deranged extremes our hijacked government will go to to force the US into another unnecessary war and is a cautionary tale of things to come.
Relative to the recent wars in the Middle East, a war in the Pacific promises to be far more devastating and has the real possibility of involving nuclear weapons and electromagnetic pulses designed to wipe out all unshielded electronics. However, “devastating” translates to windfall profits for the defense industry and their financiers on a scale not seen since World War II. A war or even the threat of war with China would mandate trillions of new defense spending financed through loans to the US government (ironically, this new debt would probably be bought by China). New high tech weapon systems would have to be fast tracked into service and even more draconian surveillance and cyber warfare systems would also be justified to “protect” the homeland. The Defense Department would once again get a blank check unlike any before from Congress to pursue an entirely new portfolio of overpriced defense programs, many of which, would target the American people as much as foreign entities as the current “War on Terror” has demonstrated.
The march toward war in the Pacific will be far more costly and devastating than even the worst case scenarios for the Middle East if allowed to move forward. Not only will the US suffer a total economic collapse, but unprecedented death and destruction if the game of brinkmanship is overplayed and China and or North Korea call our bluff. China is not an ally of the US, but is also not any more of a threat than we decide to create. If you want to check China, it will be best done through effective economic competition and by strengthening our freedoms and liberties at home. Runaway defense spending will only weaken the US. Stop giving China preferential trade status, stop creating massive debt at home, stop educating China’s military scientists, stop allowing China to steal our most sensitive secrets, stop providing China and North Korea aid, and hold the line on our sphere of influence. At home we have to cut taxes on citizens as well as reduce the overwhelming bureaucratic weight of endless regulations and taxes on businesses. We need to protect our workers, our products, our technology, and our industry by not undermining them with imbalanced trade deals favoring offshoring and overseas manufacturing. We also need to secure our borders, dismantle the surveillance state, cut the size of government, wean the population from state dependencies, and become as individuals and a nation much more self-sufficient. Cutting the Defense Budget will go a long way to neutralizing the financial influence the military-industrial complex has over US policy and would strengthen, not weaken the security of the US. All of these actions will go far toward reigning in massive and unnecessary spending and debt. The media must also be returned to its watchdog status of the government and be purged of its recently assumed role as the public relations arm of the political parties. No American interest is served by a biased media. Failure to provide honest, unbiased, and factual news to the American people will lead to further deceit, loss of liberties, degradation of our quality of life, and potentially devastating wars.
Once again we are here warning the public of what is transpiring behind the scenes and are the first to bring it to you. The best way to battle this latest escalation toward war is to become informed, know the facts, and make sure others are educated as well. Neither the media nor the government can lie to you if you independently have sought out and found the truth. Take this truth to the internet, the airwaves, the cable news programs, your local clubs…anywhere you can find an audience. By exposing the lies and replacing them with knowledge and facts you can collectively disrupt and stop the plans of the defense and banking industries and their puppets within the government. Those of you who serve the government; especially in the military, have an obligation to the American people and the Constitution to also speak out, to refuse to become an active participant, and to stop these unconstitutional and thus illegal and immoral actions. Only through action can we overcome these true threats to the US, the gravest of which, have originated internally.
By Guiles Hendrik
December 11, 2013
All rights reserved.
The Disenfranchisement of America and the Plan to Reverse It

The Constitution says that the number of representatives shall not exceed one representative for every 30,000 constituents. This ratio was roughly equal to the actual ratio of representatives to the population at the time the Constitution was ratified. However, today, most states have less than one representative per 700,000 people. The result of this massive dilution of federal representation in Congress has been a near total disenfranchisement of the population and consolidation of power within two establishment political parties. In order to begin restoring the balance of power to the people, breaking the party gridlock within Congress, and restoring liberty we must build popular support to overturn the arbitrary limit of 435 representatives set in 1929. The sooner we build awareness and draw media attention to this issue, the greater the pressure will be on Congress to increase its size and begin to return the power to their constituents.
To begin, for a republic such as the United States to have a functioning representative government, there must be adequate and real representation of the citizen body. The representatives must be answerable to their constituents and not political parties. The notion today that a single representative can adequately represent the interests of over 700,000 people is lunacy normalized through decades of slowly eroding the individual’s political value to the point of nonexistence. Further, the faux representation perpetrated upon the American people today has only been possible because politicians realize that their power is proportional to the number of people they represent. The exact opposite is true for citizens. The fewer citizens that are represented by a single representative, the more direct representation and influence the citizen possesses.
The Founding Fathers of the United States had much to say on the topic of what fair representation at the federal level would look like. James Madison understood the danger of too few dictating to the many and adequately summarized his thoughts as the smaller the House, relative to the total population, the greater is the risk of unethical collusion or myopic groupthink. In contrast, “Numerous bodies … are less subject to venality and corruption.” [James Madison, 14-August-1789] Federalist Paper Number 56 (February 19, 1788) describes this ratio stating, “…it seems to give the fullest assurance, that a representative for every THIRTY THOUSAND INHABITANTS will render the [House of Representatives] both a safe and competent guardian of the interests which will be confided to it.” Note that the number “THIRTY THOUSAND” was capitalized in the papers for emphasis.
Melancton Smith’s observations deserve special attention as he, perhaps more than any of the other delegates to the Federal Convention, understood the gravity of the situation. He knew that the power to determine the number of representatives could not be left to the ruling elite, which all too often become addicted to power. This would be “a power inconsistent with every principle of a free government, to leave it to the discretion of the rulers to determine the number of representatives of the people. There was no kind of security except in the integrity of the men who were entrusted; and if you have no other security, it is idle to contend about constitutions.” [Melancton Smith] Smith elaborates on his valid and time proven point that we cannot expect the House to unilaterally increase the number of representatives. “To me it appears clear, that the relative weight of influence of the different states will be the same, with the number of representatives at sixty-five as at six hundred, and that of the individual members greater; for each member’s share of power will decrease as the number of the House of Representatives increases. If, therefore, this maxim be true, that men are unwilling to relinquish powers which they once possess, we are not to expect the House of Representatives will be inclined to enlarge the numbers. The same motive will operate to influence the President and Senate to oppose the increase of the number of representatives; for, in proportion as the House of Representatives is augmented, they will feel their own power diminished. It is, therefore, of the highest importance that a suitable number of representatives should be established by the Constitution.” [Melancton Smith]
Alexander Hamilton, an opponent of writing limits on representation into the Constitution, provides interesting insights into his logic. For starters, it appears he neither conceived nor intended the federal government to have the sweeping powers that it possesses today. “The subject on which this argument of a small representation has been most plausibly used, is taxation. As to internal taxation, in which the difficulty principally rests, it is not probable that any general regulation will originate in the national legislature.” [Alexander Hamilton] How Hamilton would have reacted to the reality of the Federal Income Tax, Obama Care, and the litany of other internal taxes levied since the ratification of the Constitution is anyone’s guess, but based on his above statement, one could surmise he would have altered his position on the need to include specific representational limits in the Constitution. This conclusion is further supported by Hamilton’s statements respective of his belief that the federal government’s powers were limited and would never extend into one’s private life. “The powers of the new government are general, and calculated to embrace the aggregate interests of the Union, and the general interest of each state, so far as it stands in relation to the whole. … Were the laws of the Union to new-model the internal police of any state; were they to alter, or abrogate at a blow, the whole of its civil and criminal institutions; were they to penetrate the recesses of domestic life, and control, in all respects, the private conduct of individuals,—there might be more force in the objection; and the same Constitution, which was happily calculated for one state, might sacrifice the welfare of another.” [Alexander Hamilton] Of course we know now that the federal government has grown so oppressive and omnipresent as to invade every aspect of one’s private life. As such, Hamilton’s grounds for objection, however implausible he may have believed them to be at the time, turned out to be the very grounds that time has proven most required the Constitution to dictate an equitable ratio of representatives to constituents.
Based on the rather clear intent of the individuals ratifying the Constitution, one may wonder how did the number of Representatives become fixed at 435? The answer is rather simple; because Congress passed a bill in 1929. The bill sought to prescribe a national policy under which the membership of the House shall never exceed 435 unless Congress, by affirmative action, overturns the formula and abandons the policy enunciated by this bill. Respective of the number 435, there is no real reason other than that was the number of representatives at the time and the House found it advantageous to their political power to limit the growth further. Of course the population of the United States has massively grown since 1929, which in effect increased the representation ratio to such an astronomically large number that the mere notion of representation was utterly destroyed. However, this has only bolstered the power of the representatives and political parties, which have gerrymandered districts to the point of making the election of independent, grassroots connected representatives nearly impossible. Except for those who are independently wealthy, election and reelection campaigns in super-sized districts require that the representatives raise huge sums of money on a nearly continuous basis. This makes representatives beholden to the parties and big donors that funded their campaign instead of the constituents they purportedly are there to represent. In short, this allows special interests, lobbyists, and other corrupting elements to highjack the representative.
To put the state of disenfranchisement in perspective, it is worth noting that Russia as compared to the United States has over 50% better representation of its people. In fact, the United States has the second worst ratio of population to House representative in the world. Surely as the “leader of the free world” the United States could muster better representation.
Challenging this notion one may surmise that a larger House would result in even more gridlock in Congress. However, with an approval rating consistently below 10% and the inability to so much as even pass a budget, it would be hard to imagine a more dysfunctional Congress. Further, if the above maxim that a smaller legislative body would be much more productive held true, then the Senate would certainly be very efficient. However, the Senate is as dysfunctional as the House when it comes to operation. In fact, there are rarely more than a handful of Congressmen from any chamber present during session and even fewer actually engaged in meaningful debate. In part, this is because the work of the Congress is broke down into committees, which would be no different if the House increased its numbers. As for anyone that doubts a large body could pass legislation, California is often used as proof this is untrue. In fact, California has for decades effectively voted on hundreds of propositions. If the millions of people in California can effectively vote on legislative initiatives, it should be simple for even ten thousand representatives to vote on similar legislation. Naysayers may also point out that the government is too big already and adding more Congressmen will just make it worse. This is also untrue and in fact just the opposite would most likely be the outcome. As the number of representatives increase, Congress will have to become more representative of the people. The House will be more, not less motivated to reduce the size of the government. This is because the representative will be far more accountable to their constituents, which will be much better able to monitor their actions. It is also worth noting that an increase in actual representatives may be closer to an overall neutral growth in government employees because fewer staff members are required to support smaller districts, which would balance against larger staffs to support larger districts.
Each state is guaranteed at least one representative, no matter what its population. States with a single member in the U.S. House of Representatives are Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming. The District of Columbia has a non-voting delegate in Congress who has all the powers and rights of a representative, but is not permitted to vote. Currently, the approximate number of constituents to a representative is around 705,000. If the ratio was closer to 1:50,000 we would have a House with about 6,100 representatives. This increase could be dealt with by regionalization of Congress much like the Federal Court Districts, which could have interactive debate via the web and electronic voting. It would also mean your vote once again counted and you would have real influence at what approximated to what most experience at the state level of politics. It would once again be difficult for any one party to control Congress. It would be even more difficult for special interests, big businesses, and lobbyists to buy off Congress simply due to the sheer number or representatives, which would require immensely large sums of money and unavailable financial and manpower resources to gain a majority of support for pork legislation. The result would be a more accountable, more effective, and more representative Congress.
The notion that we could once again have realistic representation in Congress is not a pipe dream. It is an obtainable goal that is well within the feasible realm of effective change initiatives liberty minded citizens can unite around. We must build the awareness of the population that the status quo is unacceptable and that the 1929 law that disenfranchised us today must be overturned. We need to all write our Congressmen, get on talk shows and radio, use social media, and empower the grassroots movements around this nation to take this goal on as a part of the platform.
By Guiles Hendrik
December 9, 2013
All rights reserved
The Debates in the Federal Convention
August 6, 1787
As the proportions of numbers in different States will alter from time to time; as some of the States may hereafter be divided; as others may be enlarged by addition of territory; as two or more States may be united; as new States will be erected within the limits of the United States, the Legislature shall, in each of these cases, regulate the number of representatives by the number of inhabitants, according to the provisions herein after made, at the rate of one for every forty thousand.
— Reported by James Madison
Overcoming the Greatest Prepper Weakness: The Individual versus the Community and a Plan for the Future
One of the greatest assets to preppers is that they are self-reliant and able to independently operate. However, it is also their greatest vulnerability. No matter how tough, how well-trained, how well armed, or how well prepared an individual is, there is only so much one person can do. Numbers matter. As an individual, you must eventually sleep and can’t stand guard indefinitely. You can only be at one place at one time. A second set of hands on nearly any labor intensive task is better than one. If sick or injured it is very difficult or impossible to provide prolonged self-aid or surgery. If directly confronted by an organized and numerically superior force, the odds are decidedly against the individual. You can only accurately fire one weapon, at one target, at one time. Further, your best odds of survival if attacked by superior numbers would be to try and escape, but even then it is pretty easy for a larger number of pursuers to head you off and corner even the craftiest of evaders. As such, for any realistic, long term survival plan, one must build a prepared community. A community is the foundational bedrock of a society and a nation. The community is where the individual can truly make a difference and build a better life. Today’s article is my appeal to you to take action to improve your life, to create new and better communities, and to take back our nation. I will provide each of you with the template to not just resist, but triumph. Each one of us has the ability to change the status quo in the present day and no longer be at the mercy of the state, which at one time, represented us as citizens. Make no mistake, survival is a long term struggle against both nature and tyranny that comes with sacrifice, but we can overcome the odds best through collective action.
Man is neither designed nor equipped to be a solitary animal. Individually we are weak and vulnerable and would have long ago become easy prey and gone extinct if it wasn’t for banning together. Since the earliest prehistoric times, man has grouped together in bands and tribes to survive. Modern man is no exception as we live today more interconnected than ever. This interdependency has allowed us to specialize, to survive, and to even have leisure. Man was designed with neither the long claws and fangs of apex predators nor the acute hearing and swift speed of prey. We don’t come with fur to protect us from temperature extremes and have long since lost our immunities to many parasites commonly found in food and water. Man’s greatest asset, his mind, combined with strength in numbers has demonstrated that he can overcome nearly any extreme and challenge. This maxim is as crucial for survival today as it was ten thousand years ago when small bands of Ice Age hunters and gathers grouped together to fend off ferocious predators and take down massive game.
Communities and villages sprang to existence out of the mutual need for security and distribution of labor. Someone always needed to tend to the fire and be on the watch for predators so that others could safely sleep. While some hunted the others cooked and farmed. In modern times, these families became bands, then tribes, and then nations. As nations grew, man’s greatest threat ceased to be lions and tigers, but his fellow man. Nation state violence led to the need to collectively organize in even greater numbers or risk being numerically overwhelmed by a neighboring nation. Internally, the rise of nations led to the rise of brutal tyrants and the further need organize the masses in resistance in order to escape slavery and death at the hands of the king’s mercenaries.
Today, the modern prepper faces all of these challenges. At the most local level, the prepper must find a way to accomplish the daily tasks of a subsistence existence. The chores of simply acquiring and preparing food and water, staying warm or cool, maintaining shelter, and creating or fixing the means to accomplish the former are enough to rapidly overwhelm anyone. However, the prepper must also provide for his common security against potentially large bands of hostile people and what appears to be an increasingly hostile government. Individually, or at least as a family, it is certainly possible to scratch out a subsistence level of existence as long as you are never confronted by a hostile group. However, it is simply not realistic to believe that one could independently sustain for the long term when faced with hungry bands of violent, armed, thugs or a hostile, state sponsored tyranny.
As previously stated, I don’t care how prepared you “think” you are; if you are trying to subsist with just a handful of people, an organized group of basically trained thugs with a proclivity for violence will quickly overwhelm you and certainly seize whatever preps you have stored. This is not a situation of maybe, but an absolute. The preppers that fail to learn and internalize this are living in a fantasy world. Preppers that ardently stick to their small groups in remote and isolated areas only delay the inevitable. This paradigm may be best illustrated by how law enforcement represents a small percentage of the population, but effectively controls the masses by being able to quickly mass and achieve local (tactical) numerical superiority against any resistance. Individually, there have been literally millions of people arrested that were tough, prepared, and well-armed, but I can’t think of any in recent memory that have successfully fought off a determined attempt at seizure by the police. Sadly, government has never proven capable of leaving individuals alone and hungry mobs have never shown the proclivity to take the moral high road and starve when the option to loot for food existed. Eventually, preppers that failed to organize BEFORE a collapse or crisis and build communities will each be independently identified, targeted, and wiped out by thugs or hostile government forces.
The solution to this is not a new one. It is as old as mankind. Like minded individuals will once again need to band together to collectively survive. This is and will be an essential, critical, FACT that preppers must accept. Preppers need not build communes or cede their independence, but do need to build communities. These communities need to be aware, prepared, and organized in a manner that they are effectively self-sustaining and self-governing. It is equally essential to also build the population numbers in a concentrated manner that will change the voting demographic so that elected representatives will not only properly represent, but be of the same mindset of their constituents. We have seen some of these successes in Montana and Idaho, but are failing to coalesce in an organized manner nationwide. Only by achieving, at minimum, at first, tactical numerical superiority in targeted regions will free, independent, liberty minded individuals be able to live a life of freedom with liberty in something more than their imagination.
Communities built around self-sustainment are by their very nature resilient to natural disasters, grid failures, and crime. By locally producing food, water, and power a community can almost completely eliminate the major vulnerabilities of today’s societies. The society is healthier, happier, and more connected. By once again localizing industry, the community can build, fabricate, or repair nearly anything and have a vibrant localized economy. Further, by having a large pool of like-minded citizens, the community can fend off both political and physical attacks. One threat can be defeated through the ballot box and the other through tactical numerical “superiority.” To illustrate this point, 100 groups of eight preppers could disperse across the 50 states (two groups to a state). These small groups have zero political influence or protection and could be rounded up and wiped out in a single night by either hostile thugs or government forces operating in groups so small local law enforcement could field them. However, if you combined these groups in one area, you would have the local tactical strength of upwards of 800 people. This is a sufficient number to not just swing, but control elections in smaller districts, install a like-minded sheriff and deputies, and present a unified defense requiring at least a battalion of military regulars to engage with any chance of success. Imagine getting back to a time and place where instead of fearing police, the local police actually acted to “defend” the locals and keep the peace with the full weight of the people and the law behind it. Imagine a place where you could walk down the street and not be filmed, photographed, tracked, and fined for violating one of a seemingly infinite number of overbearing regulations. Now consider the literally millions of like-minded “preppers” that exist in the cities, towns, and the rural expanses of America. If the media is to be believed, tens of millions of these people are already organized under the nebulous title “Tea Party.” By concentrating these numbers we not only make being prepared and living free mainstream, but the lifestyle sells itself. Don’t waste your strength and try to fight the numbers in states like California, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New York. Let those states wallow in their own filth, debt, and ever increasing taxes. Instead, take charge and opt out of them. Stop paying into those defunct systems and move away. Concentrate in places where we can control the elections, the schools, the local law enforcement, and ultimately empower our way of life. To use the cliché, “if we build it, people will come” is justified. As we set ourselves apart and demonstrate a workable better life, more and more people will turn away from their current unsustainable, rat race existences and seek something better for themselves and their families. People want this and are thirsty for leadership, but to date, few have stepped up. If we lead, the masses will follow.
The model outlined above is feasible, suitable, and something that could be quickly accomplished in the near term. Much debate surrounds the “optimum” prepper retreat location, but it is unnecessary because few states truly fit the bill. Further, most of the debate is academic because true survival will not come from hiding and hoping tyranny will overlook you. Instead, we must recognize “prepping” is not just an action but a way of life that must be protected and nurtured. To truly survive, we must come to terms with reality and engage in an effective course of action with a chance of long term success. We must change the debate and public perception of preppers. We need to show the public we are absolutely no threat, peaceful, and reframe ourselves as a persecuted minority requiring protection, much like the Amish or Mennonites. To effect this we must concentrate our numbers in specific localities. The best prepper locations to concentrate at first will be areas of low population density, but ample natural resources. Further, it is only reasonable to first target locations within states that predominately tend to support freedom, liberty, and independence or in short, support a prepared lifestyle and are not burdensome with respect to taxes and regulation. This means that an ideal state probably will not have a large, leftwing, urban center like New York City, Philadelphia, or San Francisco that disproportionately biases the elections. That immediately rules out states such as California, Massachusetts, Maryland, and New York. You would also want to avoid locations with staggering debt or other lingering problems that would be materially detrimental to building new communities. Out west, states such as Idaho, Montana, North and South Dakota, and Wyoming offer the best options to concentrate. Idaho has long been recognized as an ideal redoubt and is already demonstrating that this model works. Not only have local and state leaders been elected, but representatives at the federal level have been elected and are now insulating Idaho from many of the problems facing the rest of the nation. In fact, businesses are also moving to Idaho. Gun and ammunition manufacturers in particular have found Idaho a great place to set up business.
In the east, West Virginia may well be on its way to becoming the prepper redoubt of choice. West Virginia’s topography is well suited to the defense and has a very low population density. There are entire areas of West Virginia that have zero electronic emissions. The federal government has also recognized West Virginia’s suitability for surviving an apocalypse and has built various “hollow mountains” throughout the state. Unlike many other potential redoubts, West Virginia is a realistic location to bug out to from most areas along the East Coast and is not prone to natural disasters such as hurricanes, tornadoes, or large earthquakes. It is also well protected from potential nuclear blasts and is not seen as a high value target for terrorists. Further, West Virginia really doesn’t have any major metropolitan areas that will spill millions of refugees into the surrounding hinterlands. The climate is very suitable for growing a variety of crops and the state is rich in natural resources that range from salt and coal to timber and natural gas. West Virginia tends to not be heavy on regulation and the people are generally conservative minded and live already as semi-preppers. West Virginia also has the potential to be a leader in alternate energy. It has endless ridgelines for wind and solar power as well as many streams and rivers suitable for various scale hydroelectric systems. West Virginia is an outdoorsman’s paradise, yet is still located close enough to eastern population centers that it will have increasing influence. Given the low population density and the affordability of homes and property in West Virginia, it would be relatively easy for preppers in the mid-Atlantic to relocate and take up residence in a few targeted counties such as Hampshire, Hardy, Mineral, and Grant counties in the eastern panhandle. By concentrating in these counties and gaining a strong percentage of the voting block, like minded preppers could essentially establish a food hold in the heart of the mid-Atlantic and establish their own model community. Note that it is not necessary to even gain a voting “majority” in these counties because the influence of a well-organized and active electorate will be more than sufficient to sway, skew, and control any local election. Further, voter turnout; especially at the local level and during primaries, tends to be extremely low so it would be possible to not only oust incumbents on tickets, but stack the local and state governments with our candidates. From those initial gains, we could fundamentally change how local and then state governments operate in the near term and demonstrate a better way of living to the nation. Ultimately, we will fundamentally change the thinking nationwide and to this end, achieve our goals of independence, liberty, and sustainable living.
I challenge each of you today to disseminate this message as widely as possible, to as many people as possible. Sow the seeds of liberty and freedom again in people’s minds. Let them know that they don’t have to accept the status quo and can change their situation now. There are no longer empty frontiers to escape to and waiting till the SHTF will be too late. We must pick our ground wisely now so that we can stand our ground later. By doing something as simple as moving your state of residence (even if that doesn’t mean you physically move) so that you can (and must) vote in Idaho or West Virginia, we absolutely can improve our lives and the lives of others. Follow my lead and begin the process of stacking the deck in these two states where as little as a hundred votes can control the officials elected at the local and state level. Idaho and West Virginia are not the end, but the beginning. From these two localities we can expand our communities to the surrounding regions and states, but we have to begin somewhere and we have to begin now.
By Guiles Hendrik
November 3, 2013
All rights reserved.
Media Missed the Biggest Coup in the Middle East and it wasn’t in Egypt

Tuning into the Fox and CNN “entertainment” networks, one would be lucky to catch a small bit of news between the brain numbing, around the clock reports on the Trayvon Martin Case and Anthony Weiner’s perverse antics. Nonetheless, a close follower may have gathered that “former” Egyptian President Morsi was overthrown in a broadly supported coup that has pitted the Muslim Brotherhood against the Egyptian military. However, at about the same time, a much quieter and potentially more dangerous coup for the US took place in Syria. In fact, Al Qaeda just accomplished its latest “hostile government takeover” by effectively decapitating any last vestige of a secular Free Syrian Army (FSA). If not bad enough, President Obama has announced commencement of an insane US policy to arm these well-known terrorists. This can ONLY end in disaster for the US.
By July 12, 2013 news of the assassination of Kamal Hamami began appearing in foreign press. Kamal Hamami, a member of the FSA’s Supreme Military Council, known as Abu Basir, was killed in the Turkmen mountains near the northern city of Latakia, spokesman Louay Meqdad reported to Al Jazeera. Hamami was killed by fighters from an Al Qaeda-linked group in Syria and was one of the most senior leaders of the Western- and Arab-backed Free Syrian Army. Another FSA spokesman Qassem Saadeddine told Reuters, “The Islamic State phoned me saying that they killed Abu Basir and that they will kill all of the Supreme Military Council.” Al Qaeda should be taken at its word as it does appear to have continued to carry out its threat and has operationally assumed control of the rebel army.
The leader of the Al Qaeda organization that claimed responsibility for Hamami’s killing, the Islamic State of Iraq, is led by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi arrived in northern Syria to take control over Al Qaeda operations in the country and has apparently wasted no time in consolidating power under Al Qaeda’s banner. This organization has effectively assumed control of the Islamist Al-Nusra Front, which was officially declared a “terrorist group” by the US in May, and is considered to be the most effective opposition group battling Assad. As such, any notion of secular, nationalist forces fighting Assad evaporated with Al Qaeda’s coup within the FSA.
Analyzing these events further, one will note that Abu Bakr is a violent Al Qaeda terrorist leader from Iraq and epitomizes how this conflict has already gone regional. The US created civil war in Syria has now fully spilled over into neighboring Iraq just as our analysts predicted and warned. Violence in Iraq, which now is killing hundreds weekly, has reignited the Sunni-Shia civil war in Iraq removing any notion that the US succeeded in bringing about a more peaceful and democrat Iraq. Incidentally, Abu Bakr cut his teeth on killing Americans, not Syrians, and now Obama IS arming his organization in what must be considered one of the dumbest policy moves an American president has ever made.
Middle East analysts recognize the fact that the Syrian Civil War will continue to spread and engulf more countries in the Middle East counter to Washington’s claims. The situation is out of control. Longtime US ally Jordan is in a particularly perilous spot. In fact, secretly, Washington is so worried Jordan will be the next government to be toppled by the Al Qaeda terrorists the US is backing, Washington has quietly deployed a military force numbering over 2,000 in Jordan to attempt to contain the fighting should it begin spilling across the border.
Collectively assessing this information, it is clear the US has placed itself into an untenable paradox. On one hand we are trying to defeat Al Qaeda and protect the US while simultaneously arming and training Al Qaeda on the other. Al Qaeda has made no question that it will target the US as soon as its fighters finish in Syria. By arming these terrorists, our nation is effectively creating, aiding, and abetting its very own enemy to kill Americans. Not only is Obama’s policy a violation of US anti-terrorism laws, but it violates every core element of common sense and self-preservation. This conclusion is so obvious and the intelligence so overwhelming, Obama is literally using our tax dollars to kill Americans.
This policy of fighting Al Qaeda while simultaneously arming Al Qaeda that the Obama Administration has engineered screams of amateur hour, is out of control, and is as dangerous as it is schizophrenic. The only groups to benefit from this lunacy will be the money lending institutions and the defense industry (military industrial complex). However, in the interim, hundreds of thousands of people have been wounded and killed with many more surely to follow. There is simply no way the Obama Administration can claim that by arming KNOWN AL QAEDA TERRORISTS, the US will benefit. This Al Qaeda coup in the FSA leadership proves that any arms provided to the FSA WILL ultimately end up in the hands of Al Qaeda radicals.
Please contact your representatives in Congress, petition the White House, organize your neighbors to political action, and contact your media. Demand this insane policy of arming terrorists in Syria cease immediately. Failure to force Congress and the President to act will ultimately suck the US into another disastrous war, economically destroy our nation, and lead to untold numbers of dead and wounded Americans.
By Guiles Hendrik
July 29, 2013
All rights reserved
For more information:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23283079
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/07/20137127710849717.html
Why is the Obama Administration Now under Fire? The Israel Nexus.

Source: www.Freestaterevolution.com
The national dialogue and media coverage of the Obama Administration has markedly changed toward the negative over the last two weeks. Revelations from unimpeachable witnesses about the lies and political cover-up of the Benghazi terrorist attack have led the headlines. Now, just this week, a second scandal involving the Internal Revenue Service illegally and unconstitutionally targeting conservative and Jewish groups has broken open. This scandal is pure state sponsored intimidation of political enemies and must be dealt with by the courts. Simply firing or admonishing IRS employees will not suffice a scandal that appears likely to go right to the top. These scandals are serious and could lead to impeachment of President Obama. However, scandals involving the Administration are not new. For example, the public is still awaiting answers to the “Fast and Furious” scandal. What is different this time is that the media is not giving President Obama a free pass. Instead, the media appears to be asking the hard questions for the first time and President Obama is running for cover.
To understand the mechanics of what is at work, one must understand the media. Generally speaking, in today’s media world, reporters simply get the sound bites producers and senior editorial staff direct. Reporters simply don’t run with their own stories and leads anymore. The headlines are all generated behind the scenes by management. Further, it is fair to say that President Obama still enjoys an almost cult like following and support from within the media, which tends to be very liberal and progressive. This liberal media pool has not changed their overtly biased allegiance to President Obama. Instead, senior management in the Soros-Murdoch media monopoly has made a decision to put very real pressure on the Obama Administration. Thus, the question is why have Soros and Murdoch decided to give orders to reign in President Obama. Clearly, the Obama Administration has acted or failed to act in a way that pleases its financiers.
This pattern of sabotaging presidents during their second term of office is pronounced. Recent presidents Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, Bush, and now Obama have all suffered during their second term. Debate continues on why administration destroying scandals seem to surface during second terms, but it is arguable that the presidents became a bit too independent in their actions and establishment elites brought them down. Further, President Obama, like all politicians, likely made many promises in the run up to a close election to ensure his re-election win and now has not made good on them. In short, wealthy financiers of the politicians expected certain returns and when they did not get them, they pulled the plug on their support.
In the case of President Obama, it appears that his inaction respective of Iran has enraged special interests that have long sought a war with Iran. Specifically, it is likely President Obama made a secret agreement with the Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu to hold off attacking Iran so as not to jeopardize his re-election. Now Israel wants action and President Obama has not lived up to his promises. As such, Israel, its powerful lobby, and its expatriates in control of media empires (Soros and Murdoch) have decided to put some real hit on the Obama Administration to remind it who is calling the shots. The increasing pressure mounting on President Obama creates an extremely dangerous situation. Most likely, this will end with either President Obama creating a diversionary situation much like President Clinton’s infamous launching of missiles during the height of the Lewinsky Scandal or acquiescing to Israeli demands. The latter is far more dangerous for U.S. interests and security. Only time will tell how this will play out, but for certain, something treacherous is amiss behind the scenes causing the sudden turn of events for the White House.
To better understand why the media has now turned on President Obama it is important to pay attention to how key events have unfolded since just before the election.
- August 21, 2012: President Obama gives a speech and announces that use of chemical weapons by Syrian President Assad would be a “red line” and change his calculus. President Obama signaled to Israel that it would attack Syria and Iran if Israel was threatened. http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/20/world/meast/syria-unrest
- September 27, 2012: Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu draws his famous “red line” on a bomb during his U.N. address giving Iran “nine months” to halt its enrichment activity or Israel would strike if the U.S. did not. Nine months places Israel’s time period for an attack squarely in the May-June 2013 timeframe. This was understood as Israel announcing it would NOT attack Iran before the November presidential election in the U.S. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/09/netanyahu-raises-with-red-line-obama-still-keeping-cards-close.html
- March 21, 2013: President Obama visited Israel for the first time as President. The understood reason for this visit was to reinforce US support for Israel against threats from Iran and Syria. Information on how the state visit went was limited, but many analysts believe Washington did not agree to the level of support and involvement Israel had hoped for.
- April 23, 2013: Israel accuses Syrian President Assad of using chemical weapons; specifically, sarin nerve gas, on the rebels. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/04/israel-accuses-syria-of-using-chemical-weapons-probably-sarin/
- U.S. does not act and White House mute on military action.
- May 4, 2013: Darrell Issa announces whistleblowers will testify on Benghazi, which reignites a scandal the Obama Administration had desperately tried to squash. The scandal had gone cold since its height at the end of 2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/04/darrell-issa-benghazi_n_3215231.html
- May 5,, 2013: President Obama shifts the “red line” after “Israeli” reports of Syrian use of chemical weapons and Israel conducts airstrikes in Syria. This came after repeated attempts to indirectly and directly involve the U.S. “overtly” in the Syrian Civil War appeared to have failed. Instead of acting and involving the U.S. in Syria militarily, President Obama “softened” his redline and did not act. http://video.msnbc.msn.com/msnbc/51780717#51780717
- May 5, 2013: The United Nations contradicts Israel and provides strong evidence that it was the rebels and not the Syrian government forces that used chemical weapons. The impact of this report was that a decision to arm Syrian rebels was delayed. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/05/us-syria-crisis-un-idUSBRE94409Z20130505
- May 10, 2013: News begins to break of an Internal Revenue Service scandal that illegally targeted conservative and Jewish groups. Ironically, the issue was first brought up in March 2012 by Rep. Charles Boustany Jr., R-La, but no media attention was given to the issue until now. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/10/irs-apology-conservative-groups-2012-election/2149939/; http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/10/nation/la-na-irs-conservative-20130511
- May 13, 2013: The news continues to worsen as the scope of both the Benghazi and IRS scandals broadens and begins to directly implicate the White House. Congressmen and the media now begin to quietly talk of impeachment.
As the timeline demonstrates, promises were made with Israel that have not been met by President Obama. These failures to act on behalf of Israel correspond nicely with the increasing pressure on the White House and the total shift in even liberal media coverage. Although correlation does not equal causation, anyone that studies politics and understands the significance of dates and timing will quickly realize that war has quietly been declared on the White House. Why this war has been declared is up for debate.
By Guiles Hendrik
Why You Should Fear the Government When You are Not Doing or Saying “Anything Wrong”
When educating people about the dangers of broad and unchecked government surveillance, sadly, it is all too often that “educated” people will say that they are not concerned because “they have nothing to hide” or that “they aren’t saying or doing anything wrong.” To say these people are missing the point is a dangerous understatement. Naiveté aside, these people are parroting media programmed responses without applying the least bit of intellectual rigor to their statement. Not only is history full of very good reasons to fear overly intrusive police states spying into your private life, but current events also provide more than enough justification to worry. The truth is that the United States Government has been and will continue to egregiously violate law-abiding citizens’ rights and terrorize political opponents until it is checked on all fronts by a united population that demands accountability and punishment for the criminal abuses of power.
Literally tens of millions of people have been put to death in China, the Soviet Union, and Germany for doing, saying, or believing things that are perfectly legal, lawful, and peaceful. Under Stalin, being educated was enough to have you shipped off to the gulags. In China, the mere appearance of not adhering to the government’s political agenda earned you a bullet to the head. In East Germany something as simple as a neighbor reacting improperly to a political speech or a child’s comment about his parents’ dinner time conversation to a teacher could earn the unsuspecting offender a night time visit from the Stasi. Many would quickly say this is not a comparable case since the U.S. is far different than these governments. However, more and more frequently, it appears that the U.S. Government is indeed singling out peaceful, law-abiding citizens for nothing more than their personal beliefs, religious convictions, or political ideology. The targeted citizens are many and includes veterans, gun owners, Christians, those that do not believe in condoning abortion or homosexual activity, whistleblowers, conservatives, farmers, hunters, fisherman, coal miners, war re-enactors, small businesses, and parents that believe in home schooling. The price these law-abiding citizens, businesses, and organizations are paying for their beliefs are becoming steeper and steeper as the government incrementally consolidates powers and eliminates any opposition.
The pattern of U.S. Government sponsored terrorizing of citizens to force political agendas is disturbing and is becoming more and more common. Most recently, it was exposed that the Obama Administration has known since 2011 that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has been systematically targeting conservative political groups and Jewish organizations for additional tax scrutiny.[i] These people were targeted for government harassment not because of illegal activity, but because of their constitutionally protected beliefs that were contrary to those held by the ruling elite. Instead of demanding resignations and criminal trials for the blatantly illegal actions by members of the IRS and Obama Administration, the White House has instead chose to label the actions as “inappropriate.” “Inappropriate” is by default the White House condoning the terrorizing of citizens that hold different political or religious beliefs. Remember, Jewish groups were also targeted by the government. One need only remember what happened in Germany to see where this kind of unchecked activity leads. Even businesses as innocent and innocuous as Chick-fil-A have been recently targeted for holding firm to their legal and constitutionally protected religious beliefs. Chick-fil-A’s refusal to cave to government harassment and terrorizing threatened to put a widely loved American restaurant chain out of business for nothing more than opposing the cult of Obama’s political correctness.
If the Obama Administration is allowed to get away with these repeated criminal abuses of power, there will no longer be any legal obstacles to the ruling elite using whatever government force it wants to “force” compliance with its agenda and ideology. No matter what political party one may currently affiliate with, you have a responsibility to hold your party to account and should demand they take action. Failing now means that when another party comes to power, as it inevitably does, you will be the one whose political or religious beliefs are targeted. If you fail to act now, then you can guarantee your cries for help will go unheard and you will have no one to blame, but yourself. Those that think that “doing nothing wrong” means they will be safe are not only ignorant, but also will be some of the first victims when government oppression progresses from harassment to total control and terrorism. Please act daily to inform your circle of friends and urge action. Contact your elected representatives and demand they take legal action immediately. If the politicians fail to listen and act, make sure that they know this will be the end of their political careers and make doubly sure they are not re-elected. In fact, if the party as a whole refuses to act, make sure to vote for none of the above and find a qualified independent candidate that is willing to break the death grip the parties have on our country.
By Guiles Hendrik
[i] http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/10/mcconnell-answers-irs-targets-conservative-groups/?cache; Last accessed May 12, 2013
It’s happening. Momentum builds as world drops the US Dollar as its reserve currency

For years economists have warned of the time when international trade will begin decoupling from the U.S. Dollar as the world’s reserve currency. As the theory goes, the United States will face financial and economic collapse if the position of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency is undermined. In short, the U.S. can finance its massive debt because it can print its own money and nations will buy its debt. However, if the dollar was no longer the standard world currency for trade, the U.S. could not endlessly print money and sell its debt. The result would leave the U.S. with a choice between being unable to service payments on its debt or continue to print money and hyper inflate its currency to valueless. Both scenarios lead to financial and economic collapse. The U.S. would cease to exist as we know it if the theories prove true.
Until recently, these currency naysayers were slandered as alarmists or conspiracy theorists. However, their predictions have begun coming to pass at an accelerating rate. Already, the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) nations have formed a financial block that seeks to reduce and then remove the dollar as the standard currency for trade. Many other countries have bought into this transition to include key energy trading partners of the Gulf Cooperation Council such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates. Further, the world’s second and third largest economies (China and Japan respectively) have already dumped the dollar and began directly trading in their respective domestic currencies. Specifically, in December of 2011 China and Japan agreed to direct currency trading in an effort to explicitly limit the role of the dollar [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/business/global/china-and-japan-in-currency-agreement.html?_r=0].
As this trend away from the dollar has accelerated, even traditional “Western” allies have begun to buckle to the pressures of economic reality as the dollar continues its decline. The latest of these appears to be Australia, which just last week announced its intention to convert billions of dollars in trade with China to their own domestic currencies. In effect, now that China, Japan, and Australia are eliminating trade in the dollar, which sets the stage for effectively closing the dollar out of Asia.
Also this week, in support of the momentum away from the dollar, Brazilian Minister of Finance Guido Mantega (L) and Chinese Minister of Finance Lou Jiwei signed a memorandum of understanding between the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Brazil and Ministry of Finance of the People’s Republic of China on Bilateral Cooperation in Macroeconomic, Fiscal and Financial Policies at the 5th BRICS Summit in Durban, March 26, 2013. The deal eliminates the dollar in about $100 billion in direct trade between the countries over the next three years and marks another milestone in the shift in international trade away from the U.S. dollar. Alarmingly, China has now replaced the U.S. as Brazil’s main trading partner with over $75 billion in annual business. Next up at the BRICS summit in Durban will be discussions to establish an international development bank to serve as a counter-balance to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. All of this ultimately combines to decouple world markets from the dollar, which will undermine the U.S. strategically.
The fact is the world is dropping the dollar. The dollar has been all but destroyed by the policies of the Federal Reserve and massive U.S. deficit spending and debt. Regardless of what the likes of Tim Geithner or Ben Bernanke tell the American public, the rest of the world sees the US and European economies as terminally ill. The pace of decoupling will continue to accelerate as more and more trade is conducted without the dollar. This creates a catastrophic downward spiral of self-perpetuating collapse. As the dollar is weakened, more countries will stop using it, and as they stop using it, the dollar will become weaker. This trend then becomes a self-fulfilling currency disaster for the U.S.
The dire predictions of the “alarmists” are coming to pass. It still is not known if this decoupling will lead to the dollar’s disaster, but the fact that the move from the dollar was accurately predicted lends credit to the forecasters’ conclusions. Inflation has already affected every American at the grocery store and gas pump. A shopping cart of groceries now costs nearly $500 and a gallon of gas $4. Americans are at their breaking point. Sadly, this is just the beginning. It will get much worse as the value of the dollar continues to plummet and the cost of basic goods and services skyrocket. As Americans suffer and elitist bankers cash in on record profits, anger may finally boil over into the streets as it has across Europe. Any objective observer can see jobs are gone and not coming back and it’s only the elites that are getting richer while the remaining members of the middle class are bled dry with ever increasing taxes, costs, and premiums.
One does not need a crystal ball to see how this is likely to end and it isn’t pretty. Even if suddenly Congress and the President decided to act decisively, the U.S. economy and financial system is by many accounts too far gone to be salvaged without a complete collapse and restructuring. This means that greater pain for nearly all Americans waits in the near future. By pain, picture pensions robbed, savings accounts pilfered, entitlements cut, spending eliminated, services non-existent, infrastructure crumbling, and even higher unemployment…and this is the best case!
By Guiles Hendrik
Additional resources:
http://www.ibtimes.com/so-long-yankees-china-brazil-ditch-us-dollar-trade-deal-brics-summit-1153415
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/03/30/China-Russia-Coalition-Creates-Alternative-to-IMF-World-Bank
War in Korea?

Within the last 24 hours, North Korea has significantly escalated tensions on the peninsula by announcing it has entered a “state of war” with South Korea and closed key border areas. The statement, carried by the communist country’s KCNA news agency, says inter-Korean relations will be dealt with in a wartime manner. “From this time on, the North-South relations will be entering the state of war and all issues raised between the North and the South will be handled accordingly,” the statement said, according to Reuters. In addition, North Korea previously scrapped the armistice and in effect re-entered into an official “WAR” with the United States. The fact that the U.S. is now in “war” and little to nothing has been said by the U.S. to the public is not only unsettling, but appears to be dereliction on the part of the White House to take this threat seriously. This prompts the question, how serious is North Korea about re-igniting a shooting war? Further, what are the larger strategic ramifications of North Korea’s escalation? Our analysts believe the White House’s position is that this is just more rhetoric and is failing to appreciate the strategic situation as a real and developing threat.
The intelligence community and military is no doubt paying attention, even if quietly. Currently, it appears that no major military preparations in North Korea are underway. However, some activity around missile sites suggests that North Korea may conduct additional missile tests as soon as this weekend to further heighten tensions on the Korean Peninsula and to try and force negotiations for de-escalation. Although, propaganda photos distributed appear to show missile trajectories that target the U.S. and its interests, North Korea doesn’t possess a proven capability to effectively carry-out such an attack. Further, some speculate that North Korea’s boy dictator, Kim Jong Un, has not solidified his control over the military and this game of brinkmanship is designed to show his internal circle he is a capable military commander more than it has anything to do with the outside world. This has led analysts to again conclude North Korea’s threats are just more rhetoric designed to elicit aid to the starving and backward dictatorship.
The analysis above summarizes the general mood of the intelligence community and analysts toward North Korea. The problem is this analysis has remained static while the world has changed. It is true that North Korea has perpetually “cried wolf,” but one must consider the game board as larger than a single peninsula. The fact is that the position the U.S. has previously enjoyed for decades has been eroded to the point of signaling a major geopolitical power shift. As such, one must re-evaluate motives, assessments, and ground truths. The military and intelligence community have at least not projected outwardly they have grasped this global sea change setting the U.S. and North Korea up for potential miscalculations and disaster.
For starters, analysts haven’t grasped that how the world view of America has shifted for the worse. In short, the U.S. now appears weak and unable to react to foreign threats. The U.S. military has been exhausted over the last decade of constant war. Although the military now has a hardened cadre of combat seasoned soldiers and a conventional military unmatched globally, stock piles of supplies have been diminished, budgets have been cut, troop strengths have been slashed, and the appetite for further war is zero amongst both soldiers and citizens. Further, the U.S. is broke and the economies of Europe and the U.S. have remained weak and teetering on collapse. Even worse, the U.S. and NATO are seen as weak and as having been defeated in Iraq and Afghanistan. Irrespective of whether or not the U.S. did or didn’t not “take the gloves off” and use its full might in those wars, the world perception is one of a country weakened and in retreat much like the Soviet Union circa 1989. Finally, the U.S. is seen as having tied itself down in a strategic struggle in the Middle East targeting Iran, while countries like China have rapidly built up their presence and military capabilities abroad. This sets the stage for drastic strategic miscalculation.
Our analysts are arguing that Kim Jong Un is not blind or ignorant to the capabilities of the U.S. as he was raised in the west. Instead, North Korea’s leader is dangerously over confident he can win a war of brinkmanship against a now weakened U.S. that is retreating globally. In particular, the U.S. has appeared weak in the Pacific against a growing Chinese dominance and has failed to check China’s moves against Japan and inroads in Taiwan. These areas are key to the collective perception of the U.S. by North Korea. Further, North Korea has witnessed what they consider a far inferior enemy in Iraq fight the U.S. to a hasty withdrawal and in Afghanistan to strategic defeat. Further, North Korea sees the U.S. military primarily focused on Iran and unable to deal with issues outside of the Middle East. Based on this, North Korea likely assesses the U.S. unwilling and unable to prosecute a full scale war on the Korean Peninsula. Add to the fact the U.S. economy is in shambles and the national debt is approaching default levels, one can see why Kim Jong Un suddenly has found his footing. Unfortunately, this doesn’t change the fact that the U.S. can marshal an overwhelming strategic and or conventional military force against North Korea should rounds begin to be exchanged. Herein lies the serious danger for strategic miscalculation. For the first time, North Korea and the U.S. “both” believe they legitimately can back the other down and win in the event of war based on miscalculations by analysts on both sides. In fact, this situation is so dire, that Russia, seeing the developing crisis from its vantage point, has strongly urged both parties to de-escalate. Considering the above from a detached perspective, we assess that a very real threat has emerged not from intent, but due to miscalculation that could quickly lead to events spiraling out of control should any side misstep.
Strategically speaking, the U.S. has far more to lose than North Korea. Should North Korea follow through with its rhetoric, even in a limited fashion, the hand of South Korean politicians to finally retaliate may actually engulf the peninsula in war. The fact thousands of Americans are stationed there assures large U.S. casualties in the opening hours of a major war, which would force the U.S. into a hot war. The entire geopolitical order will be undone, should this occur, as the U.S. will not have the ability to project force elsewhere and its debt will expand beyond sustainable levels making it quite possible the U.S. would collapse from within before any long term war is concluded on a battlefield. This frees China to force its hand in the Pacific realm and Iran to continue its programs without fear of retribution. Even if the U.S. was to prevail, it would be at best a Pyrrhic victory as the U.S. would likely lose its empire much as England did after incurring the crippling costs of World Wars I and II. It is now time for the White House to wake-up and recognize how the world order has changed and update its playbook before it is too late.
By Guiles Hendrik
Related new articles:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57577110/north-korea-says-its-entering-state-of-war-with-south/
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/30/us-korea-north-war-idUSBRE92T00020130330
Assessing the Success of the War on Terror Part I: Pakistan and the Failure of the Drone Strategy

As the never ending War on Terror drags on into the fourth consecutive presidential term without any decisive gains, one must question not only the effectiveness and strategy, but also our very leadership. Nowhere is the ground truth more palpable than in western Pakistan. Since President Obama took office and significantly increased drone strikes against alleged terrorist targets, America’s ability to safely operate and influence events in the country in a manner favorable to the United States has inversely deteriorated. This is a direct result of America’s flawed drone strategy, which has strategically weakened the U.S. in Pakistan.
According to Gallup’s poll just released, more than nine in 10 Pakistanis (92%) disapprove of U.S. leadership and only 4% approve. Remarkably, this is the lowest approval rating Pakistanis have ever given the U.S. and its leadership. This is noteworthy as President Obama’s ratings in Pakistan have sunk far below even those of the much criticized President George W. Bush. Further, and more ominous, 57% of Pakistanis aged 15 to 29 and 53% of those 30 or older, deem interaction with the West as a threat.
Numerous explanations for this near total disdain for the U.S. have been suggested. What is clear is that prior to the U.S. prosecuting the War on Terror via drones inside Pakistan, Americans enjoyed relative safety and warm relations. As such, only a fool would be unable to make the connection between drone strikes, the violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty, and growing hatred of the U.S. Pakistan’s Ambassador to the U.S. Sherry Rehman makes this much explicit in her comments to reporters two days before President Obama’s nominee to be the next head of the Central Intelligence Agency, John Brennan’s, Congressional Testimony. Ambassador Rehman expressed Islamabad’s view that America’s continued deployment of drones was a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty and was strategically counter-productive. Specifically, she stated “We need to drain this swamp and instead it [the drone campaign] is radicalizing people.” Rehman went on to say “It creates more potential terrorists on the ground and militants on the ground instead of taking them out. If it’s taking out, say, a high-value or a medium-value target, it’s also creating probably an entire community of future recruits.” Her statements are corroborated by a Pew research poll conducted last year that showed 74% of Pakistanis termed the U.S. as an “enemy.”
Our senior policy makers have failed to grasp strategy at the strategic level. At best, they are fighting a tactical war. Our leaders have proven themselves amateurs that are unable to mitigate and defeat even the lowest echelon of threats facing the U.S. Further, they have no appreciation of the historical precedent respective of the use of limited cross-border strikes against insurgent type threats. Had they done their homework and studied cross-border insurgencies, they would know that these limited surgical strikes are counter-productive just as Ambassador Rehman states. In fact, no matter how great the tactical gains achieved are, they never result in decisive strategic gains and in fact, result in a sum net strategic loss. Thus, war strategies reliant on limited cross-border strikes, such as our drone strikes in Pakistan, have a near perfect correlation with the counterinsurgent’s failure or better stated, the insurgent’s victory. No further proof of this need be generated than a simple review of the contemporary hostile sentiment towards America in Pakistan.
In our Part II of this series, we will look in more detail at the results of America’s flawed strategy that has caused the spread of radical Islam across the globe, made Al Qaeda franchise, and perpetuated a fear culture to fuel unending war.
Sources:
Confirmed! Clinton Admits to Supplying Terrorists with Weapons
“There is no doubt that the Algerian terrorists had weapons from Libya. There is no doubt that the Malian remnants of AQIM [Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb] have weapons from Libya,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during a hearing on the 2012 attack on the US consulate in Benghazi.
Just as our analysts had predicted from “BEFORE” the start of overt American intervention in Libya, weapons have fallen into the hands of terrorists and have now again been used to kill American citizens in Algeria. We repeatedly warned of the grave dangers created by supporting known Islamic terrorists in the overthrow and murder of former Libyan dictator Gadhafi. However, Clinton acted in the stereotypical fashion and claimed she took full responsibility for the growing number of deaths related to her incredibly flawed policy in Libya, but in reality took no responsibility and sought to blame the nebulous “Arab Spring.” I guess Mrs. Clinton forgot that it was US aircraft and drones bombing Gadhafi’s forces, which directly allowed the rebel forces, stocked full of known terrorists, to capture and loot hundreds of thousands of advanced military weapons to include over 20,000 unaccounted man portable surface-to-air-missiles similar to the infamous US manufactured “Stinger” missile used against Soviet low altitude aircraft in Afghanistan. If Mrs. Clinton fails to connect the dots between her horrendously flawed Libya policy and the deaths of Americans, she should, as Senator Rand Paul suggested, be immediately relieved of her post due to gross incompetence. However, I don’t believe Mrs. Clinton is that naïve…she is just a liar.
By Guiles Hendrik
Change the Debate: How to Win the Battle for Gun Rights Part II: Take Action
Patriots, you must act now while you still have the ability to resist. Apathy will lead to tyranny in our lifetime. You must make the facts known, you must make your numbers known, you must make your determination known, and you must check the opposition at every corner. Call out those that mock you and seek to enslave you. Do not by shy. Be fanatical in your perseverance to protect your few remaining rights and freedoms and then to win those lost back. Do not rest at simply protecting the shreds that are left, but push till you have fully regained your rightful freedoms and deposed those that threaten them. When fighting those willing to enslave you, it is proper, justifiable, and responsible to radically oppose their actions. Organize, protest, and march on your state houses and Washington. Out the traitors attempting to take your rights and enslave you!
On the electoral front, for starters, you must vote out anyone that supports gun control. Further, you must abandon both the Republican and the Democrat parties that have long since abandoned their constituents for special interests and lobbyist dollars. Neither party serves your interests but simply uses you for their gain. Don’t allow the parties to divide and distract you on ridiculous issues while they pass laws to indefinitely detain you during midnight sessions of Congress over Christmas when they think no one is paying attention. Remember, at nearly every instance of the erosion of your freedom and liberty, it was by a bipartisanconsensus. You must hold all of our elected officials accountable at the voting box and destroy the current party establishment by voting for neither and insisting on running and voting for independent candidates.
Not voting is as ruinous as it is stupid. It is true that many are disillusioned when it comes to elections, but you actually have significant power to change the course of elections by taking some simple, but effective actions. These grassroots tactics are real, effective electoral strategies used successfully by the parties themselves, but are closely kept from the public’s eyes. To change the electoral game on the parties, begin by collecting the names and contact information of all likeminded people in your voting district. This is one of the most basic and important aspects of grassroots mobilization. There are many ways to do this including asking for lists already generated by gun rights groups. However, if you must start from scratch, begin with your friends and family. Then have them each reach out to those in their networks and those people reach out to those people in their networks. Ask that every person just reach out to at least one other person to do the same. Have them all send their contact information to one consolidated email address where the master list can be developed. Use this list to rally and motivate your local base to go out and canvas for even more supporters. An effectively run networking operation like this can quickly net thousands of supporters. At the local level, this mobilization is enough to sway and win an election.
Next, organize throughout your state by district. As the names add up, combine these district lists to form a picture of support across the entire state. Use these lists to write your representatives demanding they vote to protect and expand gun rights. Further, make it very clear to the representative that the constituents you represent will vote in the primaries and pool their money to run a viable opposition candidate. Few people realize that many elections are won and lost in those very early pre-election district and state contests, which next to no one pays any attention to. The fact that so few people turn out for primary elections means that an incumbent representative is very, very vulnerable during this early stage of a campaign. If the electorate is mobilized and turns out for an opposing candidate, just a few dozen or even a couple hundred votes WILL often end the incumbent’s campaign. This is especially true if it is done secretly and the turnout is a surprise to an apathetic and over confident incumbent. Even worse for the incumbent is the fact that they will have to spend precious money early on in the campaign when no one cares or is really paying attention, which puts them at an extreme disadvantage to their opponent. This money isn’t spent defeating the opposing party’s candidate, but rather, just to secure their own party’s nomination. This depletes the party’s coffers and effectively is a means to force a party to self-destruct through financial starvation. Further, the primaries are also when the candidates often have the least amount of campaign resources and can’t afford a big financial fight. Use this knowledge and leverage to gain control over your local representatives. Done effectively, you will not only be able to influence your representatives, but replace them with your candidates.
To win at the state level, you must build on this strategy and grow the network. State level wins are the big key to success because states have the Constitutional authority to counter, block, and ignore federal dictates. Wins at the state level also shape the state party and will be the NECESSARY foundation for changing the federal makeup of elected representatives. Just as important is the fact that winning and influencing local and state elections is feasible and can be done within a relatively short time span. For example, when targeting anti-gun candidates in the primaries across a state in large numbers, a well-organized front can inflict electoral disaster on the targeted party. A real threat of this gains you real access and influence over not only the candidates, but the parties themselves. Further, well organized movements can pool their resources to greater effect. In the districts with well-grounded and supportive representatives, skip targeting them as you already have a viable candidate that is supportive of expanding gun rights. Instead, focus on the candidates and districts that are opposed to gun rights. For example, this may mean that supporters in rural districts of a state like New York or Maryland pool their resources to run a candidate against an anti-gun candidate in an urban area of the state notorious for pushing gun control, which is out of their district. Done effectively and early in the primaries, it is possible to completely remove the candidate and replace that candidate with your own pro-gun candidate. Then the party must make a choice to either support a pro-gun candidate (even if that isn’t the party’s platform) or risk losing a seat and influence during the actual election. The party will have no choice but to bend to your will. Depending on the situation, sometimes it is best not to try to get your candidate on the ballot, but to get the worst one off. This would be a great strategy to employ against a progressive anti-gun Democratic that has historically has won by large margins. At the worst, you would force the candidate and the anti-gun party to spend precious cash leaving it vulnerable to the opposition party. The fringe benefit is that you are also now in a position to leverage this influence over the weaker party that typically would have forced a pro-gun agenda.
Ladies and gentlemen, apathy at this late stage of the game is not acceptable. History shows that once guns are registered they are taken. Once they are taken you don’t get them back. Disarmed against tyranny, the forces of evil will attack using the full force of modern weapons and violence. The result is always the government inflicted deaths of millions of innocent people in the pursuit of absolute power and control; a number of deaths, which is far greater than any crime spree in history or terrorist act could inflict. Ultimately, what one will have won for apathy and the hope that you will be left alone will be slavery for generations.
Change the Debate: How to Win the Battle for Gun Rights Part I: Understanding the Fight
Ladies and gentlemen, dark days are upon us. Not since the Civil War has the liberty and freedom of this Republic been under so great a threat. What makes this threat so dire is that it is both internal and external. Unlike past foreign, external threats that were overt and allowed the American people to rally around a common cause, these threats are covert and come from within. These threats are quietly supported externally by powerful financiers and are designed to lead to America tearing herself apart from within. These forces could be summarized as geopolitical enemies like China and ideological enemies such as globalists, the heads of big banks, and the European Union. What they all have in common is a universal disdain for American values, freedom, and liberty, and the threat America poses to their consolidation of world power and control. The proof is all around. What was sacred, moral, ethical, and right only 50 years ago is now derided by the government, media, and pop culture. Our nation is not a melting pot, but a patchwork of government fabricated special interest groups all fighting against the others resulting in gain only for the elite. The fundamental rights of free speech, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, free press, the ability to keep and enjoy what one earns, and the ability to defend all of the above against those wanting to take it have been abolished or constrained and limited to the point of irrelevance. Those unwilling to submit to these new pillars of correctness and to surrender their freedom and liberty are chastised, black balled, insulted, penalized, fired from jobs, and now even put on terrorist watch lists and arrested. Only by going on the offensive and recalibrating the arguments can this be turned around. We have been pushed too far and must reclaim ground. Ladies and gentlemen, to use a football analogy, we are on the one yard line and the enemy is about to score. There is no further room to give and we must push them back.
It’s time to change the debate just as the enemies of a free America have attempted with the “gun debate.” If ,as they claim, we need to revisit the “meaning” of the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment, then we need to codify the fact that an individual has an unalienable right to self-defense of their person, property, and innocent civilians. Further, it must be clear that this includes the right to own and carry weapons sufficient in power to offer a reasonable check against government tyranny as the central hallmark of the right. This means that the weapons and armament possessed by the citizenry must be allowed to adapt to the technology of the day. In 1786, a flintlock musket was the assault rifle of the day and was sufficient to counter tyranny. Using the same bar, the population today is under armed. We the people demand better access to true military grade assault rifles, suppressors, and anti-armor weapons and ammunition. Further, the populace requires access to other high tech electronic warfare and communication devices to protect against spying, surveillance, and stand-off attack in order to balance against the police state that has rapidly risen over the last decade. Remember, it is the government that should fear the people and not the reverse. This is not extreme, but reasonable. What IS extreme and unreasonable is the massive growth of “law enforcement” and paramilitary police organizations to the point cops are indistinguishable from front line combat soldiers and are sitting on every block. What IS extreme and unreasonable is the Orwellian police state we have funded and built with tax dollars to place a camera on every square inch of land in America, to record every single electronic activity of every person in America without cause or warrant, and to create secret blacklists of people barred from travel and slated for detainment and or execution without due process. What IS extreme and unreasonable is the police use of military armored vehicles that are now comparable in capability to tanks and drone aircraft used to spy and kill with impunity around the world against our civilian population.
We now face a situation where it is no longer a government of the people and for the people, but one of a government for the government and of the government, which will stop at nothing to protect the government even at the cost of those it is entrusted to protect and serve. Those enemies of the free people, those elitist usurpers, those friends of tyrants, we know you and will call you out. We will hound you at every step and turn your game upon your heads till all see you for your true colors. Piers Morgan, Alan Dershowitz, Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, Michael Bloomberg, George Soros, Arianna Huffington, Andrew Cuomo, Rachel Maddow, and the like behind the scenes are on notice. We will not allow you to casually denounce us, mock our freedoms, and undermine our sovereignty. We will see you fired from your jobs, defeated at the ballot box, discredited in academia, scorned in public. You are the threat and the living proof why we not only need the Second Amendment in our Bill of “Rights,” but need to expand it to compensate for today’s challenges. This is our constitutionally protected and defined right and responsibility.
Senator “Chuck” Hagel’s Nomination for Secretary of Defense: Traitors Oppose Him Because He Told the Truth and Put America First!
What appears now to be President Obama’s imminent nomination of former Senator Chuck Hagel has caused a firestorm of criticism from traitors in our midst. In particular, Senator Hagel is under attack because he was gutsy and honest enough to state an obvious fact about the disproportionate and decidedly negative influence various Israeli lobby groups exert over U.S. policy. Some may try to deny this fact, but I would submit that the mere fact that there is such uproar over this small statement made years ago proves how disproportionately powerful this lobby continues to be. Then Senator Hagel didn’t stop there and was brazen enough to also boldly state that U.S. interests should come first and that he swore an oath to the Constitution! How dare he put the U.S. first and swear allegiance to the Constitution and want to follow the rule of law! On second thought, how dare any American criticize him for taking that stand!
Let’s separate fact from fiction. Senator Hagel in my book is far from a perfect candidate for the position of Secretary of Defense, but the man has a lot going for him. For starters, he is a self-made millionaire and understands business. The Department of Defense is the world’s largest bureaucracy so we need a good manager to rein it in. Mr. Hagel has also openly made comments suggesting he recognizes that the interests and security of the U.S. should be placed ahead of other nations’ interests and that he recognizes the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land. This too IS a good thing for America! However, if you happen to believe that the best interests of a foreign nation should supersede those of the U.S. and you are not a foreign national, then you need to disclose yourself as an agent of a foreign government to the F.B.I. and the American public before suggesting Mr. Hagel is a bad guy for taking the side of the country he is sworn to protect.
Second, Mr. Hagel seems to recognize that the Constitution is an important and valid document. This is a vast improvement from his predecessors, which under Congressional Testimony seem to forget that the Constitution exclusively gives the power to declare war to the legislative branch of government (Congress). Both Panetta and Gates, when questioned directly by Congress on this subject, testified to the point that the authority to commit U.S. troops to war lie not with Congress, but the international community, whatever that is. What it isn’t though is Constitutional. Further, in the context of Hagel’s statements against the Patriot Act and then President George Bush’s constant push for the war in Iraq, it was quite clear that he was drawing a distinction between party politics and the best interests of a free nation. Again, this is commendable. Finally, Mr. Hagel voted in favor of Senate Amendment 2022, restoring habeas corpus, the right to due process, to American citizens detained at Guantanamo Bay detention camp, but voted against a similar resolution restoring it to non-U.S. prisoners detained at Guantanamo. This demonstrates Mr. Hagel understands that U.S. citizens have certain unalienable rights granted by the Constitution and are materially different than foreign combatants. The need to have a Secretary of Defense with this type of legal and ethical compass is even more important now after President Obama just signed into law the latest National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which effectively suspends habeas corpus and allows American citizens to be captured and indefinitely detained even while inside of the U.S. This latest law is draconian and the epitome of tyranny. Mr. Hagel may be one of the few that could achieve appointment while still imparting some balance.
Third, the man actually served in the U.S. military, has seen “ground” combat in Vietnam, and earned two purple hearts. Any one of these would clearly set him apart from his peers, but combined, suggests Mr. Hagel recognizes the dangers of useless wars with no winning strategy or end. His criticisms of the War in Iraq demonstrated that not only did he see Iraq for the massive waste of life and resources it was, but also was willing to stand up and say something about it when the rest of his Senate peers quietly walked in lockstep with the Republican Party. I for one believe anyone acting in the position of Secretary of Defense should know firsthand what it is like to be in combat, risk your life, and be put in a position where you must take the life of others. No text book, degree, or amount of empathy can replace the raw horror of war. As such, no one that hasn’t actually experienced war can truly appreciate what our troops are asked to do and properly formulate Department of Defense policy.
If not enough, Mr. Hagel serves on President Obama’s Intelligence Advisory Board. This is a senior position with access to highly classified information and is central to the development of security and defense policy at the Presidential level. As such, Mr. Hagel is in the know. What is funny is that he is criticized for his “soft” position on Iran, when he is one of the people who would be in the exact position to understand exactly what the U.S. is doing in respect to Iran, how well it has worked, and what the actual versus publicized threat of Iran really is to U.S. national security. Further, he would also be acutely aware of the degree to which countries like Israel have lobbied to inject their interests into our policy with respect to Iran and whether or not this was in the best interests of the U.S. Knowing all of this information, Mr. Hagel has come out against “hard” policies toward Iran as counter-productive and particularly against sanctions. Mr. Hagel was correct in his policy prescription toward Iran in part because he is privy to information most readers honestly are not. Second, specific to his opposition to sanctions, he was again correct in his policy prescription. Sanctions haven’t worked against Iran and have only complicated our negotiations, made life very difficult for the average Iranian, and bolstered the regimes propaganda that Iran’s ills are being caused by America. Finally, Mr. Hagel speaks first hand regarding the intimidation the Israeli lobby wields over U.S. policy makers. Note, Mr. Hagel’s statements regarding Israel never suggest he didn’t believe that Israel was a U.S. ally or that the U.S. and Israel would not continue to support each other. Mr. Hagel only stated that U.S. interests must come first. This clear state of mind and understanding of his responsibilities to “our” nation is of the utmost importance and I applaud him for telling the truth. If anything, one should be demanding why the media hasn’t raised such a cry for those nominees and candidates that haven’t taken such stances and seem to put America last. This is the real story of a seditious media that lacks any real accountability and has a clear bias against “U.S.” interests in its reporting.
No nominee is perfect and this is true with Mr. Hagel. Although, I would like to see other nominees and do believe based on the above Mr. Hagel is a better choice for Secretary of Defense than other potential candidates, he does have critical flaws. Specifically, even though he has voiced support for the Constitution, which today is exceedingly rare amongst politicians, he did support the Patriot Act after initially voting against it. He also voted for FISA, which among other classified powers, gave wide surveillance and warrantless wiretapping authority to the government. I believe the damage the Patriot Act and FISA have done to the freedom, liberty, and privacy of citizens is egregious and is difficult to reconcile with anyone truly respective of civil liberties and the Constitution. Perhaps the only defense of Mr. Hagel on these issues is that the most invasive spying, surveillance, and detention policies these acts proscribe were only written into law and passed after he left office. All considered, under the circumstances Mr. Hagel is likely the best nominee free Americans can hope for from this Administration, but the buyer should beware.
By Guiles Hendrik